Telangana High Court
Kotte Pothanna vs Smt. Kotte Raju Bai on 29 December, 2023
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT APPEAL No.1162 OF 2023
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Shri Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti) Mr. Kanakaiah, learned counsel representing Mr. J. Narender, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. T.V. Kalayan Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.
2. This intra court appeal is filed challenging the order dated 18.11.2023 in W.P.No.21136 of 2014.
3. Brief facts:
The appellant herein claims to be the owner and possessor of land in Sy.Nos.1825 and 1826 admeasuring Acs.1.25 gts. and Acs.3.05 gts. situated at Naleshwar Village of Navipet Mandal, Nizamabad District. An appeal was filed under section 5(5) of Telangana Rights in Land and Pattadar Passbooks Act, 1971 (for short 'the Act, 1971') before the Revenue Divisional Officer (hereinafter 'RDO') contending that a registered gift deed dated 27.11.2010 was executed in 2 favour of his daughter and in revenue records the name of appellant was reflected from 2008 till 2010-11, but in 2010- 11, revenue records reflected the name of Kotte Hanmandlu S/o Kotte Gangaram. That the appellant sought restoration of his name in the revenue records and appeal was allowed vide order in proceedings No.A3/5383/2011, dated 09.07.2011.
3.2. Aggrieved by order of RDO, the unofficial respondents filed a revision under Section 9 of the Act, 1971 before respondent No.5. The revision was rejected by an order vide proceedings No.D2/1836/2012, dated 05.12.2013. 3.3. The name of one Kotte Hanmandlu was appearing in revenue records as pattadar till 2008. Name of appellant is reflected from 2008 till 2010-11. In the year 2010-11 name of Kotte Hanmandlu was restored. It is observed by learned Single Judge in the order that neither the appellant nor the unofficial respondents pleaded before the High Court nor before the appellate authority nor the revisional authority the manner in which title was acquired 3 over the subject land. It is further observed that by proceedings bearing No.ROR/16/94, dated 31.08.1994, the subject property with several other lands situated in other survey numbers of the same village belong to Kotte Gangaram S/o Linganna and succession was ordered in favour of Kotte Hanmandlu and three others. The subject land situated in Sy.Nos.1825 and 1826 fell to the share of Kotte Hanmandlu. The said proceedings dated 31.08.1994 were relied upon by the unofficial respondents before the RDO as basis for entering the name of Kotte Hanmandlu in revenue records. It is also observed by the learned Single Judge that without verifying the genuineness of proceedings dated 31.08.1994, (issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer (hereinafter 'MRO')), the RDO allowed the appeal filed by the appellant vide order dated 09.07.2011 and directed the Tahasildar to take action for correction of entries in pahanies. The order of RDO was confirmed by the 5th respondent (Joint Collector) vide order dated 05.12.2013. 3.4. The unofficial respondents claim the right and interest in the subject property through proceedings dated 4 31.08.1994, but, the appellant got his name mutated in revenue records in place of Kotte Gangaram on the basis of family settlement, in proceedings, in case No.A1/195/2005, dated 09.12.2005. Learned Single Judge observed that the appellant is not claiming to be the son or a person in any way related to Kotte Gangaram, that the unofficial respondents were claiming through the son of Kotte Gangaram i.e., Kotte Hanmandlu. It is further observed that no enquiry was conducted by MRO before issuance of proceedings in case No.A1/195/2005 and that there is no mention of so called family settlement in the proceedings of MRO. Held that in the absence of any pleading as to how the appellant acquired the subject property from Kotte Gangaram or Kotte Hanmandlu no value could be attached to proceedings dated 09.12.2005. It was also observed by the learned Single Judge that as proceedings in ROR/16/1994 were undisputed the claim of the appellant before the RDO was without basis. It was held that orders dated 09.07.2011 and 05.12.2013 were unsustainable and were set aside. The learned Single Judge left it open for the 5 appellant to approach the Competent Civil Court for appropriate relief including rectification of entries in revenue records. This writ appeal is filed challenging the order in writ petition.
4. It is submitted by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that the subject land was a joint family property, that the name of the grandfather Kotte Gangaram was recorded and not the father of the unofficial respondents. It is contended that the unofficial respondents in the revision petition admitted that the subject land was in the name of their grandfather and that the appellant and unofficial respondents were related and the joint family properties are in the name of the Kartha of the family. 4.1. It is submitted that the Tahasildar conducted an enquiry and submitted a report that the unofficial respondents pressurised the Village Revenue Officer (hereinafter 'VRO') to incorporate the name of Kotte Hanmandlu in the pahani for year 2010-11. That the Tahasildar requested for restoration of old entries due to 6 mistake committed by part time village assistant and the RDO allowed the appeal which was confirmed by the revisional authority. That the learned Single Judge arrived at a wrong conclusion that the appellate authority and revisional authority committed an error. It is also submitted that the appellant had filed pahanies and material papers crucial for establishing the claim of appellant and the same were not considered by the learned Single Judge. Hence, the order of the learned Single Judge is bad in law and be set aside.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the unofficial respondents that the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the orders of the appellate authority and the revisional authority. The learned counsel supported the order of the learned Single Judge and contended that proceedings bearing No.ROR/16/94, dated 31.08.1994 were undisputed. That the learned Single Judge has rightly held that no value could be attached to the proceedings in case No.A1/195/2005, dated 19.12.2005 as the appellant never pleaded the manner in which he acquired the property from 7 Kotte Gangaram or Kotte Hanmandlu. The learned counsel further submitted that the learned Single Judge was right in leaving it open for the appellant to seek appropriate relief.
6. Heard learned counsels, perused the record, the order of appellate authority and revisional authority.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly given a finding that no value could be attached to proceedings dated 09.12.2005 and further correctly held that the appellate authority and revisional authority erred in accepting the claim of appellant, on the ground that the appellant has nowhere pleaded that he is in any way related to Kotte Gangaram but claimed the property through family settlement and that the said family settlement was not even mentioned in the said proceedings. This finding goes to the root of the matter. This Court is not inclined to differ with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. We do not find any grounds for interference in the order of learned Single Judge. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant are 8 devoid of merits and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. The learned Single Judge was right in leaving it open to the appellant to approach the Competent Court for appropriate relief including rectification of entries.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications, pending, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ____________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J Date: 29.12.2023 PLP 9 THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI WRIT APPEAL No.1162 OF 2023 Date: 29.12.2023 10 PLP